Michele Bachmann is not a feminist. She believes that wives must obey their husbands, a doctrine which of course is diametrically opposed to the very concept of gender equality. Presumably she’s running for president because her husband Marcus says she can. Presumably, too, Marcus would be calling the shots if she were elected, which I think would be an interesting line of inquiry for some journalist to pursue. “Rep. Bachmann, aren’t you effectively asking us to vote for your boss, Marcus?” Of course Bachmann would probably reply that we would actually be voting for God, who would then work through Marcus and thence through Michele, domino-like, to do whatever godly things He has in mind. Personally, I’d rather just write in Ceiling Cat.

(By the way, I have no doubt that the real dynamic inside the Bachmann marriage is nothing like that. I’ve known several ambitious evangelical women, and none of them were in actuality even remotely subservient to their husbands. They just pretended they were, in a sort of twisted folie à deux that was painful and pitiful to watch. But I digress.)

So Bachmann herself isn’t a feminist, but the fact that she’s a front-runner right now definitely tells us something about the progress of feminism. It’s kind of fascinating that Republican voters seem to be leap-frogging right over the usual White Males and going for Bachmann, despite her icky woman-cooties. Of course we’re still swimming in a sea of sexism, and I don’t mean to suggest otherwise. We all lived through 2008, and we all know that misogyny continues to be the weapon of choice for Dude Nation. And Bachmann herself is positively atavistic, which is one reason wingnuts are comfortable with her. But this sudden readiness to support a woman for president at all, even among the most conservative of voters, suggests to me that there are some interesting subterranean changes going on in the American psyche. Shit, when I was in high school people were still seriously arguing that a woman couldn’t be trusted in the Oval Office because she might start a nuclear war during her period.

P.S. If your comment gets hung up in moderation, it may take me a little while to get to it. I’m lying down and resting a lot.

44 Responses to “Michele Bachmann and feminism”

I do not want to see Bachmann elected, to put it lightly. Feel the same way about Sarah Palin. And I loathe my governor, Nikki Haley. But all three women are normalizing the idea of women in power in a way that benefits all of us, and for that at least I thank them.

I don’t believe this alleged Bachmann hype or that a woman in power is any more acceptable now then it was in 2008 — call me cynical but I chalk up all the “Bachmann buzz” to Obama plants (helped by his lapdogs in the media who still seem to be enamored of “Mr. Christmas, Hanukkah & New Year’s rolled into one”) who are hoping to create some kind of momentum that will lead to her snagging the nomination (remember all those “Democrat for a Day” ads by Obama during the primary urging Republicans to register as Dems to make sure that Hillary didn’t get the nomination? I expect to see Dems becoming “Republican for a Day” to get Bachmann the GOP nomination). If their devious plan works & she gets the nomination, the full force of the playbook they used against Hillary & Palin in 2008 will be unleashed & Obama will sail to a smooth re-election in 2012 — really, it is only against her (or, frankly, any other woman) that he has a chance.
Maybe I’m being paranoid, but after what I saw in 2008, I think my suspicions are well founded. As William S. Burroughs wrote: Paranoia is having all the facts.

Remember how lots of people said they didn’t want to vote for Hillary, because then they’d have to endure years of sexist jokes and attacks on her? Had that actually happened, which I doubt, that would be nothing to what we’d be hearing during a Bachmann presidency. The ugliness we’ve been wading through for the past few years would gain many degree of hysteria and extremely violent vilification that would be toxic for women and girls as they listened to it every day. And it would be coming mostly from the left. I shudder to contemplate it.

What a bizarre line of discourse! Alan Keyes is at least as out-there as Bachmann, yet when he ran for President no one penned an op-ed begging PLEASE NO BRING BACK JIM CROW ANYTHING BUT PRESIDENT KEYES. Had a black man written that the whole world would’ve regarded him as if he were stone crazy. Yet no one draws that parallel for women. And have you ever seen a man beg for his horizons to be limited so we never have another Hitler, Stalin or even a GWB? No, never.

I think the Republicans plainly see that an entire electorate, including lots of white women, got shut out in 2008 and they are cheerfully trying to appeal to that. You can’t blame them for chasing votes; it’s what parties do. It’s telling that frightened Democratic men respond to that with a wifebeatings-will-continue-until-morale-improves response: don’t you dare vote for THAT WOMAN, she’s EVIL and if you do, then whatever happens is YOUR FAULT. Never mind the male Obots created this political climate–in their infinite male wisdom they cannot make a political mistake. My ex and I had our obligatory political argument this weekend and he was insisting, “Bachmann, Rand Paul, all those people are real! They are a real threat!” Well, Geithner, Greenspan, Summers and Bernanke are a real threat too–why they haven’t been publicly arrested and tried for their broken economic management is a mystery to me–but since they went to the same fancy schools back east that the ex did, their stupidity is invisible to him.

I learned 20 years ago when I belonged to an evangelical-leaning Presbyterian church that evangelical families hew to an ideological line about the family–the man is the head, the woman submits–that few rarely adhere to in real life. All of those ladies I met at church worked for a living and none took crap from anyone. Come to think of it, they’re the mirror image of liberal secularists who proclaim themselves equal partners in family life but who, when push comes to shove, fall into the same old sexist hierarchy.

Since we are discussing female candidates, here’s a good one: Martine Aubrey is running for the Socialist nomination in France. She pursues a refreshingly social line of discourse, emphasizing “égalité homme-femme.” Music to my ears!

really, it is only against her (or, frankly, any other woman) that he has a chance

Yep. I’ve always found it amusing that so many of Obama’s supporters just can’t stop focusing every moment of their lives on attacking Palin, even now. If she chooses not to run, they won’t stop. I guess it’s impressive that their hate is so pure, but they probably should have stopped to consider that he pretty much needs to run against a woman in order to win. Someone needs to get the memo out there to curb the Bachmann derangement before Obama is left without a beatable opponent, but it’s not going to be easy.

As the visiting conservative I should point out that the three favorite candidates of conservatives are Bachmann, Palin and Herman Cain (2 women and a black man).

That fact has nothing to do with their gender or race and everything to do with the fact that they lead from the front.

Oh and Bachmann, like Palin shows that one can be a parent and/or foster parent in a traditional feminine sense and still be a strong independent leader or poll. I think that is what sets off some on the left the most.

I don’t want Bachmann to win, but I do want her to take her candidacy to the end, much as Clinton did. I think it would help normalize women running for President. Once we’ve had a woman make a serious run for the Presidency in both parties, it’ll help it seem normal for women to run.

But I also anticipate the Obama campaign, on top of that, coming up with something – just can’t imagine what – pandering to women. This time they can’t send Hillary Clinton out working overtime convincing her 18 mill. voters that they just have to vote for him. (Doing a splendid job, sad to say.)

Will the “But think about the coming SCOTUS picks!” scare and/or hints about “Roe v. Wade” be enough in terms of persuasion?

Datechguy, I believe that the GOP understands the visceral sexism of the left better than the left does itself, and is cheerfully playing to it in an effort to scoop up the electorate (notably white middle-class middle-aged women, but *not* all) the Democrats abandoned in 2008. I don’t blame the GOP for chasing votes; that’s a party’s job.

It’s very interesting that there’s not much attention paid to Mr. Cain (much less full-scale panic) by the left. I think it shows their insecurity and guilt over the treatment of Hillary and her electorate that they fear wholesale abandonment by the latter. They are beating up on female candidates, anyone who might appeal to even a segment of white women, because in their simple minds “white woman” is a proxy for “Hillary voter.”

Also, Michael Lind’s observation at Salon that the Democratic Party is now your grandfather’s Republican Party of 1955 has to do with this, too. These Establishment (and wannabe) types who streamed into the Democratic Party when the far right took over brought two things: class prejudices and respectable sexism.

I don’t think Bachmann is the frontrunner — she’s being built up by the MSM as a Palin antidote. When was the last time a congressional rep became president?

But this sudden readiness to support a woman for president at all, even among the most conservative of voters, suggests to me that there are some interesting subterranean changes going on in the American psyche.

I am with myiq, I think. Bachmann is no different than any other “pro-life” panderer on the right. Like Obama, like Palin, Bachmann says one thing and does another. You have to watch what they do. I’ll be watching.

Oh and Bachmann, like Palin shows that one can be a parent and/or foster parent in a traditional feminine sense and still be a strong independent leader or poll. I think that is what sets off some on the left the most.

It shows that family or career choice is not either or.

Sorry, but that is complete horseshit. I’ve been a feminist all my life, and the message of feminism is that women CAN be leaders/politicians/whatever and still mothers, wives, etc. It is conservativism—your worldview—that has traditionally insisted that women can only do one thing.

I am with myiq, I think. Bachmann is no different than any other “pro-life” panderer on the right.

No, she’s not. Can you imagine if the first female President—the president of the United States, the most influential woman in the world—were up there saying that women must obey men? Of course it makes no sense, but that doesn’t matter.

The doctrine of wifely submission is one of the most pernicious aspects of modern Christianity. Every year women and girls die and are raped and beaten and destroyed because of that shit. Lives are ruined. It is a pox on civilization. And you want the Number One Woman in the U.S. to be embodying that point of view?

Am I deluded? I see Palin as someone who is (slightly) to the left of Bachmann although of course she is clearly conservative. Palin does not seem to me someone who would even say “obey your husband.” IMO, Bachmann is bat shit crazy while Palin is more your standard conservative who governed more to the center in Alaska.

It’s kind of fascinating that Republican voters seem to be leap-frogging right over the usual White Males and going for Bachmann, despite her icky woman-cooties.

She’s Palin-lite. Some people think she’s not as “damaged” as Palin and her presence will satisfy the Palin supporters (like me) because, you know, we’re just blindly voting with our uteruses and all. Bachmann is being supported by the Right and Left alike right now because she can’t win but she might prevent Palin from running, which is what they really want. As soon as Palin makes a decision Bachmann will lose the phony support and disappear.

Everybody: Go see “The Undefeated” if you can. You don’t have to vote for Palin, you don’t even have to say nice things about her, but at least be aware of her real background and not the garbage spewed by misogynists.

To be fair, though, ugsome, neither Keyes nor Cain actually had a viable chance of becoming President. If either of them did, we would see some of the same angst. Probably not to the level of “bringing back Jim Crow would be preferable to President Keyes,” but we would have heard a lot of the same rhetoric, it’s insulting to nominate a Black man who doesn’t support civil rights, etc. We’re all tougher on our own, which in a way makes sense, but on the other hand, what do we really gain when we lose the symbolic victory but end up with a white man who’s as bad or worse anyway, but who doesn’t get anywhere near the same level of scrutiny or criticism?

I don’t think Bachmann does either. I don’t think she even has a chance at the nomination, not by a long shot. Taibbi is wrong. Bachmann is an ultra-extremist, and she’s only getting positive attention now because people don’t really know her and she apparently did well in the debate. But you don’t have to scratch very far beneath the surface for the batshit crazy-nutjob stuff. She (and her husband) are really very extreme.

I agree, I don’t think Bachmann has a shot, or Palin either, I just think the reaction comes from fear that they might. Nobody ever considered/considers Keyes or Cain realistically viable for a second, so no one ever bothered to get upset about it.

I’m conservative and even I would have a hard time voting for her. There is something about her that I like though. It’s hard to put my finger on just what it is though. Maybe it’s the fact that she doesn’t appear to take any shit from anyone.

If Sarah Palin doesn’t run though I think you sell her chances of getting the nomination very short. As a conservative I can tell you if Sarah Palin doesn’t get in the race I can’t see anyone who is running now that I would vote for.

What is going on with Palin and Bachmann though is a lot of angry, conservative women. It took a while for what was actually done to Sarah Palin to sink in. Now we are angry. You may not follow her in a supportive way as I do but I know many who are extremely passionate about Sarah. “We’ll wipe the blood of of each other while we crawl through broken glass to vote for her.”

I also ask a lot of my liberal women friends the hypothetical. If it is Obama versus Palin do you stand by your man or not? A year ago nearly all would vote for Obama. Lately I get more reflective pauses.

When trying to figure out where presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) gets her stringent, anti-gay views, you only have to look as far as her husband. Dr. Marcus Bachmann, who has described himself as his wife’s “strategist,” runs a Christian-based counseling center in Minnesota that has been rumored to offer reparative treatment for those looking to “ungay” themselves.

Monchichipox, I would hope that women would be able to reject sexism and misogyny, yet at the same time maintain a clear view of who these individual women really are.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are very different. The fact that they’re being treated the same tells us that Dude Nation only has a couple of stereotypes to work with.

But that doesn’t mean that Palin and Bachmann are the same.

It’s like Carl Sagan said: “They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

To which I add: And Michele Bachmann is Bozo the Clown.

A lot of the propaganda against Sarah Palin in 2008 was completely false, as I’ve documented on this blog. That is apparently leading some women to conclude that the critism now of Bachmann is also specious.

But it’s not. Bachmann has a long public history of being a wild-eyed extremist who says and believes the most astonishing things.

This does not mean she should be subjected to the kind of virtual stoning that Palin and Clinton got. No way. Absolutely no way. No woman should.

It also doesn’t mean that she should be criticized any more harshly than the godawful godbag men running—Santorum, the Mormons, whoever. Creeps, all of them.

But by the same token, that doesn’t mean that Bachmann’s extremism should be overlooked.

I totally get you post Violet. You just put it better than I do. Don’t get me wrong the only one we’re crawling through glass for is Sarah. If she runs, when she gets to New Hampshire, I will be taking a leave of absence to work on her campaign. I have this angry passion in me that must be allowed. Believe me, anyone who knows me, will be shocked that I would take a leave of absence to follow this campaign. I mean who’s gonna (fill in the blank) while you’re gone? I also love that feeling. It’s one, OK, maybe ten steps away from cashing in some savings, quitting my job, and going to Paris for a year to perfect my French.

I’m sad to say that Michele Bachmann has cured me of my devotion to the 30% solution. I suppose that I should’ve expected something like this when I made the commitment to always fvote for the woman candidate but I was so disgusted over what happened with Hillary that I reacted viscerally.

I still won’t vote for Obama but I could never pull the lever for Bachmann, either.

Believe me, plenty of people are still saying that a woman can’t be President because she might start a nuclear war during her period (not that we’re in any danger of that, unless a female combo of Washington, Lincoln, TR, FDR, and JFK suddenly appears, with Hillary Clinton’s intelligence, Palin’s charisma, approachable sexiness but not too much, strength but warmth, no sub-par Bushes, Kerrys, Obamas need apply, but whatever). And it seems to be getting worse, not better, among the youngest guys.

I’m not convinced about the attitude change despite the polls, which might be tactical. Palin was supposedly SO POPULAR with conservatives, but not popular enough for them to actually cast those votes, knowing how much it would harm her future prospects if her ticket went down in flames. There’s no way of knowing how many conservatives whose views are closest to either Palin’s or Bachmann’s just wouldn’t be able to bring themselves to vote for either one of them.

I am not at all certain that Bachmann has staying power. Please, correct me with evidence (not just Matt Taibbi Says So) if I’m wrong, but I really don’t see her carrying the general. Therefore I am not succumbing to Bachmann hysteria* just yet. All of the candidates are worrisome, and some are as crazy as she is.

I don’t believe for one minute that Sarah Palin will run for president. She’s a celebrity, and that’s what she wants to be. She likes being popular and she likes the attention. She couldn’t do the job. She’d hate it. Besides, she waffles on her positions, is quite cagey about them, and – I’m sorry – the whole Paul Revere ‘n’ guns ‘n’ ridin’ through town ringin’ bells ‘n’ soundin’ alarms experience just destroyed any cred she had with me (which wasn’t much). Even if Conservapedia quickly rewrote history to accommodate her stupid comments.

As for Bachmann, she is absolutely out of this world, and not in a good way. But I would not be one bit surprised if she’s the nominee. And I’ll bet you $100 liberal dudes will not be showing up at her campaign events demanding that she iron their shirts and announcing how she’s a c*** and all.

Honestly, I find the whole “Sarah Palin is an attention whore!” explanation for her PR approach sexist. I am not saying that you are sexist, but the media machine that tries to convince the everyday person that this is so certainly is. Everyone else is allowed to market themselves mercilessly except a woman.

BTW, her Paul Revere “version of history” is supported by historians (not just Conservapedia). It seems her folksy way of speaking turns people off.

BTW, her Paul Revere “version of history” is supported by historians (not just Conservapedia).

No it isn’t. After Paul Revere was captured he told the British the colonists were mobilizing, but that’s not what Palin said. She said he rode through town ringing bells and firing warning shots to warn the British. Which is utter complete bullshit.

It is certainly possible that she was relatively clear in her own mind about the facts and just garbled the account when she spoke to reporters; things like that happen to everyone. But to go further and claim that her garbled nonsensical version was an accurate version of history is just ridiculous.

My favorite part of the Paul Revere thing was the gun aspect. That was supposed to be the smoking gun (no pun intended) and they were all over it in two seconds before switching to the quietness aspect, “Can you believe how dumb this —– is? She thinks there was a second amendment! She thinks Paul Revere was screaming, ‘Hey, homies, protect your guns! Don’t let them be taken!’

“Out of curiosity, what do you think Paul Revere was doing? You know that his mission was to alert the colonists that the British were coming to disarm the rebellion by seizing their cache of weapons, right? As well as to warn Adams and Hancock that they were going to be arrested?”

I don’t believe for one minute that Sarah Palin will run for president. She’s a celebrity, and that’s what she wants to be. She likes being popular and she likes the attention. She couldn’t do the job. She’d hate it.

Well, Mika on Morning Joe would agree with you. She said Palin is basically just like Paris Hilton.
However, if you’d like to give the counterargument to that a fair hearing, I think that’s what The Undefeated aims to do. Make the argument that Palin does actually have a good record of governance. Or if you prefer primary historical material, the emails are available. But if you’ve irrevocably made up your mind, you can ignore all that.

After Paul Revere was captured he told the British the colonists were mobilizing, but that’s not what Palin said. She said he rode through town ringing bells and firing warning shots to warn the British.

Oh god, not the Paul Revere thing again.

Personally, I think she sounded a little tipsy during that clip (maybe she’d been enjoying a cold beverage in the bus) BUT I do think it is a misrepresentation to quote her as saying “ringing bells and firing warning shots to warn the British.” and cut off the quote there. She said: “to warn the British that they wouldn’t take our guns.”

I think everyone can agree that the last phrase makes a big difference to her meaning. However, even reading her quote in the light most favorably too her, it is still a garbled, unclear and not very accurate account. Paul Revere’s mission was to warn the colonists of the British approach to disarm them, warn Adams & Hancock of their imminent arrests & to inform (not warn big difference, IMO) the British that the colonists were not going to surrender their guns. Revere never got to properly perform that last part of his mission because he was captured.

Oh, this is rich. MSNBC just suspended Mark Haleprin “indefinitely” because he described Obama as being “kind of a dick” yesterday at his press conference. I personally have heard way, way worse names and much more “uncivil” discourse being directed at Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachmann at good old MSNBC. I wonder what the difference is?/snark.

Full statement from MSNBC:

Mark Halperin’s comments this morning were completely inappropriate and unacceptable. We apologize to the President, The White House and all of our viewers. We strive for a high level of discourse and comments like these have no place on our air. Therefore, Mark will be suspended indefinitely from his role as an analyst.

I’m pretty sure that back in 2000, Hillary Clinton was probably accused of being a dilettante power seeker who was just coasting on her husband’s name, wasn’t up to the job, and just wanted the title–probably to stick it to her husband. Her actual personality and accomplishments are irrelevant to the narrative.

What’s ironic, to me, is that historically it’s been difficult for women to gain a toehold in politics without being related or married to another politician–for which they get blasted. Whatever anyone thinks of Palin, she managed to become Governor of Alaska, of all male-dominated places, without any particularly strong connections, which is a feat, but no credit for that either. The Paris Hilton/dilettante/slept her way to the top narrative is highly adaptable, it always finds a way.

Paul Revere’s mission was to warn the colonists of the British approach to disarm them, warn Adams & Hancock of their imminent arrests & to inform (not warn big difference, IMO) the British that the colonists were not going to surrender their guns.

No. Paul Revere’s mission was to warn Adams and Hancock that the British troops were moving to arrest them, and secondarily to warn the colonists of said movements. His mission was not to warn the British of anything. He was captured by the British and acknowledged to them that he had alarmed the colonists.

Sarah Palin’s word salad made no goddamn sense, and it’s really ridiculous to pretend otherwise. “He who warned, uh, the British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin’ sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.”

Anyway, my point is that Palin had just finished touring some of these sites, didn’t she? Presuming the wiki information (which, by the way, is attributed to David Hackett Fischer’s Paul Revere’s Ride and Esther Forbes’ Paul Revere and His Times and would be easy to verify for anyone who’s got the books at hand) is accurate and would have been shared by the docents, it doesn’t seem all that hard to understand the thought process behind the comments, garbled and inaccurate though they were.

Anyway, my point is that Palin had just finished touring some of these sites, didn’t she?
Yes, there was a tiny local news article that said one of the guides in Paul Revere’s house said he was the one who had told her the story of the capture … can’t find the link though…